• Author: art rogers
• Published: Jun 13th, 2006
• Category: Greensboro '06, Live Blogging, SBC
• Comments: 19

President

TAGS: None

19 Responses to “President”

1. 
   Mike
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:21 pm: 

   Didn’t the registration secretary note that there were .49% of the ballots disqualified? That is close…

2. 
   Eric
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:33 pm: 

   The Southern Baptist Convention just made a huge mistake. God help us!

3. 
   GeneMBridges
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:37 pm: 

   How? In the past the litmust test has been inerrancy. Since Page is the one who got the GA Convention to adopt the BFM 2000, one wonders how this is a “mistake,” since he meets the theological qualifications of the office, unless, of course, you’d like to argue that the Resurgence was about or has come to be driven by more than theology.

4. 
   Eric
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:41 pm: 

   Page is a wolf in sheep clothing. Anyone can see this. Those who are intent on dividing this Convention have just embraced what we spent 27 years fighting against.

5. 
   Anonymous
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:51 pm: 

   Art
   Please hurry and get that last comment removed. Inappropriate and unchristian. I know you are at the convention so we understand that it takes awhile for you to catch it, but we know you’ll act as soon as you can. Thanks for your high standards which you’ve articulated well on this blog.
   IMB M

6. 
   GeneMBridges
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:55 pm: 

   Well, Eric, I happen to be in a church that adheres to the 1646 London Baptist Confession, so my confessional background is far, far more theologically conservative and restrictive than the BFM 2000, and I don’t see it. Unless you can produce evidence that Page is a “wolf in sheeps clothing,” I would suggest you consider all you’re doing is offering us a venomous assertion with no support. His CP record is exemplary. He supports the BFM 2000 in full. He’s even written a book against Calvinism that reads no different than the standard anti-Calvinist drivel that William Estep and others have spouted in the past. He What more do you want?

   As for what we were fighting. Well, that “war” was over at least six years ago, or that’s what we were told. So it seems you’re a Patton who has been fighting against shadows for several years now. We fought, in addition to the theological issue, cronyism and nepotism. Both of these are rampant now in the SBC. This must stop. Just because a man is an inerrantist, that does not mean he is incapable of error and sin.

7. 
   Fred
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 3:55 pm: 

   Well, for those leading it was more than just theology – for followers it was more pure.

   Some cynics say that the resurgence was about taking control away from the moderates, and the latest antics by the powers-that-be are about keeping that control from everyone left. If Ben Cole is right in his assertions, how do we know those tactics didn’t bring us to today?

   Good luck to Rev. Page – he’ll be a breath of fresh air.

8. 
   Eric
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 4:02 pm: 

   I would hope that on a blog that seems to “embrace” freedom of speech and open discussion within the SBC…my comments will not be done away with as an above poster just wished for.

   Or would that prove that some bloggers aren’t really for open discussion in the SBC…just discussion they endorse.??

9. 
   Anonymous
   on Jun 13th, 2006
   @ 4:09 pm: 

   Eric
   Art has stated before that this blog is not for name calling and being unchristian. Free speech for Christians means sharing your opinions but not making character assasinations like you just did. If you want to articulate some things you know about Page, his stated theology, a statement he’s made, or something like that, we are all ready to hear them, if you can back them up with evidence. Name calling with no support doesn’t fit. That’s my point.

10. 
    Eric
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:13 pm: 

    I didn’t enage in name calling. I simply stated a position.

    As for evidence…I would suggest you visit the founders blog and other blogs and do a little research regarding Page’s conflicting comments on certain issues.

    btw…is name calling saying things like… “the powers that be”, “those that are obsessed with control”, “the leaders who wish to suppress thought in the Convention”, etc?

11. 
    BrianinMO
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:15 pm: 

    It is sad that someone would think that being a supporter of the Cooperative Program makes a man a “wolf” in sheep’s clothing? Dr. Page may not have been “anointed” by the past SBC presidents or some of the powers-that-be in the SBC, but it appears he is God’s man for this hour!

12. 
    Eric
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:22 pm: 

    Name the “powers-that-be” Brian. Give us some names of men who are wishing to “control” the convention?

13. 
    Brother Bob
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:28 pm: 

    I was watching by streaming video when they were voting on making WMU an agency, and the video froze up and the screen went blank when they voted, so I don’t know what happened. Would you explain what took place?

14. 
    BrianinMO
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:35 pm: 

    How about name dropping like in Johnny Hunt’s speech by mentioning “Jerry Vines”, and Paige Patterson’s public endorsement of Floyd, Eric.

    Floyd was clearly the one selected to take his turn. But his church’s giving of the infinitesimal 1/4 of one percent to the Cooperative Program gave pause to many very conservative leaders, such as Morris Chapman, who know that the future of our convention is at stake. May God use Frank Page to turn the trend of decreasing CP giving to one of increased support for sharing the Good News of Jesus to the every corner of the earth.

15. 
    BrianinMO
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 4:37 pm: 

    The motion to the convention by the Executive Committee to “invite” the WMU to become an agency was defeated by a large enough margin that no ballot vote was called for.

16. 
    art rogers
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 6:08 pm: 

    Eric,

    The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” comment is probably over the line. I am going to let it stand because you are articulating an argument that has been leveled at Frank Page, and that deserves a voice and a response.

    I do want you, however to read my rules for comments. It’s the big red button on the left hand side of the screen.

    You are assaulting Frank Page’s character, anonymously, and I think it is cowardly. You also have not substantiated this claim with even anecdotal evidence. This is also a problem.

    I find it hard to believe that Tom Ascol would endorse you saying that the resurgence has been reset by 27 years as you seem to imply with a call to read the Founders blog, but I will ask him and clarify it for us all.

    I am letting your claims stand as they are because they are the perfect example of the way the charge of “liberalism” has been leveled at Frank Page. No evidence, anonymously and with hyperbolic language.

    This alone discredits everything you say.

    I promise, if you have a point and you articulate it without assasinating anyone’s character, you will be heard.

    Opinions on character are not valid.

    Opinions on situations and possible future events are welcome.

    From this point forward, though, speak with dignity about people and support any claims you make about a person.

    This is not censorship, either. Censorship is when you stop someone from speaking at all. You are free to espouse whatever you want. Blogs are free and you can post your thoughts to your heart’s content.

    When you are here, though, you must respect the rules for comments by being civil.

    “Sheep in wolves clothing” & “those who are intent on dividing this Convention,” are not civil words.

    You hurt your argument when you speak this way.

    Of course, as I said, you are always welcome to post in whatever way you like on your own blog.

    art

17. 
    art rogers
    on Jun 13th, 2006
    @ 6:13 pm: 

    One more thing, Eric.

    You said: “As for evidence…I would suggest you visit the founders blog and other blogs and do a little research regarding Page’s conflicting comments on certain issues.”

    If you make the claim, its your responsibility to provide the evidence not our responsibility to research extreme, hurtful comments from anonymous posters.

    Frankly, its libelous for you to do this.

18. 
    martyduren
    on Jun 14th, 2006
    @ 6:58 am: 

    Art-
    You can delete this if you want to and I’ll not be offended.

    Eric-
    Get a life, dude. God did help the SBC and He knew just how to do it. He had 3 guys to choose from and Page won on the first ballot.

    To call Page a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the height of abuse of Scripture and to insinuate that it isn’t name calling is ignorant at best and stupid at worst.

    If you want honest debate, then engage in it. Unsubstantiated, drive by comments such as yours are common among people who have no substance and no thought processes of their own.

    Do you really, truly, actually think that we don’t read the Founders Blog? Wake up. We are informed and we made an informed vote; so did the other 50.4% of the messengers who voted.

19. 
    martyduren
    on Jun 14th, 2006
    @ 8:09 am: 

    All-
    I did not mean to imply above that “God is with us and no one else.”

    Instead, I should have written, “in the providence of God, He chose as He did, when He could have done something else.”